The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.

A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses, as sufficient in Di∣vine Causes, for discerning Objects of Sense: and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament; by the Iudgement [ 10] of Ancient Fathers. SECT. IX.

HOw many Heretikes of old were there (such as the Va∣lentinians, Montanists, Marcionites) who denyed that Christ had a True, and Essentiall Body? and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers, by the Evidence of mens Senses that heard, saw, and felt the Body of Christ? Which sheweth plainly, that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong, even in Christian Philosophie. And to come to the [ 20] point in Question, (to conclude againe from the Premises in the former Section,) who can deny this Consequence, viz. By the same Evidence may a Christian man prove Bread to be truly Bread, after Consecration, whereby Christ proved his Body to be a Body of flesh, after his Resurrection? But this he did from the Infallibility of Sense. Therefore this may be equally con∣cluded by the same Argument of Sense.

And that there is the same Reason of both these, the Ancient Father Theodoret sheweth in the Argument, wherewith he con∣futed [ 30] an Heretike by Sense, thus;k 1.1 As after Consecration (saith he) Bread remaineth the same in substance: So Christ his Body after the Resurrection remained in substance the same. Thus much of the Analogie. (As for the word [Substance] more is to be spoken thereof* 1.2 hereafter.) Yea, and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Communicant to blind-fold himselfe, whose Testimony (digested byl 1.3 Rede) is this: That which you have seene is Bread, as your eyes do manifest unto you. And he spea∣keth of Bread, as this Sacrament was a Symbol, and Signe of the mysticall Body of Christ, which is his Church, consisting of a multi∣tude [ 40] of Faithfull Communicants, as one Loafe doth of many granes of wheat.

{fleur-de-lys}Give Chrysostome leave to put in his suffrage, especially in that Sentence,13 1.4 which is objected against us by your

owne Doctor, wherein that holy Father bringeth in Christ, as speaking to his Disciples, concerning the verity of the Sense of Feeling, and delivereth two points, especially re∣markable. One is, that Although the Sight, by reason of some defect, might be easily deceived: yet the Tryall by Touch, in discerning a Body of flesh, is beyond all peradven∣ture. The Second is, that if Christ should have propounded any Object, as being a Body, wherein their Touch should be deceived, he might then be said to have mocked and deluded his Disciples. Whereunto accordeth the like Testimony of [ 10] Pope Gregory, above cited, in the former Section. And is not the Touch, in discerning the bodily Creature of Bread, and Flesh, of equall efficacie? yea, and againe Augustine in another place, objected by your owne selves;14 1.5 Our Lord Iesus (saith he) commended his Body and Blood in those things, which of many are brought into one certaine thing: for the one is made into one of many Granes, and so Consisteth; the other Cometh into one, of many Grapes.

Consonantly S. Cyprian, and as plainly,15 1.6 When Christ called his Body Bread, (saith he) which Bread was made one, by [ 20] the Gathering together of many Cornes; he thereby signifieth our people, whom he bore, shewing them united together: and when he called Wine his Blood, which Wine is pressed out of many Clu∣sters of Grapes, and so gathered into one; he signifieth one stocke coupled together, by Conjunction of a Multitude into One. Both these holy Fathers (even as Chrysostome already, Both. 3. chap. 3. Sect. 4. hath done) teach, as it were with one breath, that the Outward Sacramentalls, wherein Christ commen∣deth his Body and Blood, being Substances compounded, the one of divers Cornes in one loafe, the other of divers [ 30] Grapes in one liquor, doe so continue the same still at the re∣ceiving thereof, (as the Analogie irrefutably proveth,) be∣cause these Both signifie the mysticall Body of Christ, which is the Church of his faithfull, by the union of multitudes of peo∣ple in one. But in your meere Accidents of Bread and Wine, you can have no union either of Granes, or of Grapes; nei∣ther can you say, that he spake not of the things Consecrated, because the things were first Consecrated, before they were commended to his Disciples to be eaten and dranke.

Athanasius will be content to deliver his vote after the o∣ther [ 40] other now cited Primitive Fathers; who, in confutation of the Hereticall Manichees, who fancied onely a Phantasticall Body of Christ, observeth that (16 1.7 Christ both did eate meate, and permitted his Body to be touched of his Disciples, that

thereby they might have not onely their eyes, but also their hands Witnesses of the Truth of his Body, and remove all exception of the apparition of a Ghost, yea, and that By the continued sight hereof with their bodily eyes, Christ insinuated Faith into their soules. Gladly would wee know whether even any doctrine could more patronize that Hereticall doctrine of a Rhantasti∣call Body, than this yours, of your maner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the E••charist doth where in these appeareth not so much as a Spectrum of that Body, but onely (as you [ 10] ••each) Accidents of Bread. {fleur-de-lys}

Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academicks, who de∣nied the judgement of Sense; wherein hee maintaineth the Truth of the Senses, and in proofe thereof hee manifesteth the Perfe∣ction of Christ his Senses in Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, Smelling; and at length he falleth upon the point now in Question, saying, thatm 1.8 If wee yield not to the suffrages of Senses, some may doubt whether Christ perceived afterwards another Sent of oyntment, which hee received (meaning another that the naturall Sunt thereof) before his Buriall. And immedia••ly hee addeth, [ 20] (marke we pray you) One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine, than was that, which he consecra∣ted for the memoriall of his Blood. That then, which Christ Ta∣sted, was first Consecrated. Next, he invadeth the Heretike Marcion, for denying the Truth of Christ's Body on earth, and con∣futeth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles. Faith∣full (saith he) was their sight of Christ in the Mount, Faithfull was their Taste of Wine at the Marriagè, Faithfull was the Touch of Thomas, &c. (then concluding:) VVhich Testifications (saith he) had not beene True, if their Senses had beene Liars. So he in [ 30] his confutation not onely of the naturall Academicks, but also of the Hereticall Marcionites, who (contrary to the demon∣stration of the Apostles Senses) denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ.

CHALLENGE.

[ 40] THis Apologie of Tertullian, in behalfe of the verity of the Senses, doth minister to all Christians foure Conclusions, First, not to conceit of Accidents without Subjects: but to dis∣cerne of Subjects, and Substances, by their Accidents. Second∣ly, that our Outward Senses rightly constituted (more especially the Sense of Feeling) are Demonstrations of Truth, in Sensi∣ble Objects. Thirdly, that this verification of Subjects, by their

Accidents, is common with Christ, his Apostles, all Christians, and with every reasonably man. And lastly, that VVine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally VVine, after Consecration, by the judgement of the Senses, because he instanceth in this very point: teaching that Christ had the same taste of Substan∣tiall VVine afterwards, which hee had before in that which hee consecrated; even as he had also the same Sent of Substantiall Oyntment after, which hee had before his Buriall. And all this even now, when he convinced Marcion of Heresie, an Ene∣mie to the Catholike Faith, in denying the Truth of Christs [ 10] humane naturall Body, notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses.

Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretike to say, what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses, concerning the Truth of Christ's Body, seeing you your∣selves gain-say the judgement of foure Senses at once, in de∣nying the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament? This, we say, they must needs have replyed, if that the Catholikes then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe, to thinke that all the Sen∣ses are deceived, in judging the matter of this Sacrament to [ 20] continue Bread or wine; and so might they have blowne away all this Catholike Confutation of Heretikes and Infidels with one and the same breath, together with the like Instances a∣gainst the same Heresie, already specified, as you have heard.

Come now hither all yee that say wee must renounce all Verdict of Senses in this Case; and tell us whether any Prote∣stant could have beene more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertullian, in his Defence of this Truth? whereby hee also defendeth the Catholike Doctrine of the Resurrection of [ 30] Christ, and was never hereof questioned by any Catholike, in, or since his dayes.

Let none of you object that of the Disciples, in their way to Emmaus with Christ, of whom it is sayd, that [* 1.9 They could not know him:] for the same Text giveth this Cause, that their eyes were holden, lest they should see him: and after,* 1.10 Their eyes were opened, and they saw him. So the Evangelist, which is so farre from infringing any thing that hath beene sayd, for the Infallibilitie of Sense, rightly constituted and disposed, that this thereby is notably confirmed. Wee call upon Hierome to [ 40] witnesse, saying;* 1.11 The Error of not discerning Christ, when hee was in the midst betweene them, was not in Christ's Body, but in their eyes, because they were closed that they could not see. Apply wee this unto the Eucharist. Dare any Papist say, that the Cause, why any of you cannot see Christ in this Sacrament, is not in his Body (which you beleeve to bee in it selfe invisible) but in your Eyes, as being shut up; when notwithstanding you

will bee knowne, that these are open enough for discerning Co∣lours, and formes of Bread and Wine.

{fleur-de-lys}It can bee but a matter of merriment, to acquaint you with that which Master Malloune a Iesuite reporteth in good sadnes, as thus:17 1.12 A devout Mayde of the Vulgar sort, by name Ioane Martlesse, (a thing most admirable, saith hee) was able to finde out one only consecrated Host, among a thousand un∣consecrated, not onely by Divine revelation, but also by her na∣turall Senses. So your Iesuite (as hee saith) out of Waldensis. [ 10] Although wee will not trifle the time, by asking how shee could smell out that one Host among a thousand, or whether the Priest infused some smellable virtue into it, to give it a Sent, yet must wee tell you, that when afterwards (in the se∣venth Booke) it shall bee discovered unto you, that there are incident to the Action of your Priest, in Conscrating, a∣bove five hundred possible Defects, which may nullifie his whole Act, so that the thing remaine still Bread (notwith∣standing whatsoever his maner of Consecrating, by him performed;) You will then know how happy it were for [ 20] your Church, that every Priest at Masse had the use of the Nose of Ioane Martlesse, to trie whether there bee any Hosb truly consecrated, as being (according to your Doctrine) sub∣stantially Christ's Body, lest that otherwise you fall into Ido∣latry, by worshipping Bread instead of Christ himselfe. (See the seventh Booke.){fleur-de-lys}.

Notes

• k 1.1

  Eranistes apud Theod. Quia sicut Pa∣nis desinit esse Pa∣nis post Consecrati∣onem, sed mutatur in substantiam Cor∣poris Christi. Ita Corpus Christi post resurrectionem desi∣nit esse propriè Cor∣pus, sed in Naturam divinam mutatur Or∣thodox. Imò verò, ut te capiam in laqueis his: Signa mystica non recedunt à natu∣rà suâ, manent enim in priori suâ formâ, figurâ, & substantià. Theod, Dial 2. c. 24.
• * 1.2

  See hereafter, Sect. 12.
• l 1.3

  Beda ex Augu∣stino, Serm. ad Insd••••∣tes in cap. 10. ad Cor. fol. 139. apud Bedam. Quod vidistis Panis est, quod oculi vestri renunciant, quod autem fides vostra, &c. Sic•••• ex multis granis tritici unus Panis: Ita ex multitudine fidelium, una assurgit Ecclesia.
• 13 1.4

  Chrysost. de Resurrect. (Objected by D. Heskins in his Parliam. Book. 2. Chap. 11.) Non est meum, meos ludificare Phantasmate, vanam imaginem visus si timet, veritatem corporis manus ac digitus exploret: Possie fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere: Palpatio Corporalis verum Corpus agnoscat, Spiritus non habet ca••∣nem & ossa, ut me sentitis habere. Quòd ostia clausa penetravi, sola est virtus divina, non sola carnis substantia.
• 14 1.5

  August. in Ioh. Tract 26. Objected by Dr. Heskins, Parl. Book. 2. Chap. 219.
• 15 1.6

  Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 6. ad Mag. Nam quando Domi∣nus Corpus suum pa∣nem vocat, de mul∣torum granorum ad∣unatione congestum; Populum nostrum quem portabat, indi∣cat adunatum: & quando Sanquinem suum v••num appellat, de botris & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expressum, gregem item nostrum signifi∣cat commixtione a∣dunatae multitudinis copulatum. (luxta Edit. Pamel. Epi. 76)
• 16 1.7

  Athan. Tom. 2. Orat 2. in As∣sumpt. Christ.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• m 1.8

  Tertull de A∣nimà, cap 7 ad finem. Quid agi••. Academi∣ce procacissime? to∣tum vitae fl••tum e∣vertis, ipsius Dei providentiam excae∣cas—non licet in dubium sensus istos revocare, nè & in Christo de fide eo∣rum deliberetur: nè fortè dicatur, quòd falsò Patris vocem audicrit de ipso testi∣ficatam, aut deceptus sit, cum Petri socrum tetigit: aut alium po∣stea unguenti sense∣rit spiritum, quod in sepulturam suam ac∣ceptavit: a••um po∣steà Vin•• ••aporem, quod in Sanguinis sui memoriam con∣secr••••t. Sic enim & M••rcion Phantasma cum maluit credere, totius corporis in eo dedigna••us veritatem: Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ludificata natura est, fidelis fuit & visus, & auditus in Monte, fidelis & gustus Vin•• in nup••••js, fidelis tactus Thomae. Recita testationem Iohannis; Quod audivimus, inquit, quod oculis vidimus; & ma••us nostrae contrectârunt de sermone vitae. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum & aurium, & ma∣nuum sensus natura mentitur.
• * 1.9

  Luc. 24. 16.
• * 1.10

  Ibid. vers. 31.
• * 1.11

  Hieron. ad Pammach: contra Errores Iohan. Ieru∣sal. Episc. Scias er∣rorem fuisse non cor∣poris Domini, sed oculorum fuisse clau∣sorum: nam aperti sunt oculi eorum, & videbant.
• 17 1.12

  Mr. Malloun in his Reply, pag. 305.